Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Patriot Act Movement Expands
MFS! writes "Mount Shasta, California has become the latest city where the USA PATRIOT act is creating a controversy. This story at the Record-Searchlight describes petitioning by a local citizens' rights committee to order police to defy the PATRIOT act. To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage."
Ok, so three states have passed anti-PA legislation?
What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations? Do the federal drug agents care when they storm into these people's "gardens" and prosecute them to the full extent of FEDERAL law?
Hell, do the Federal agents care when they destroy the Native American's HEMP fields (which were allowed under a law in the late 1800s?)
NO.
State's rights (which should be more important) aren't shit. Remember that.
One word: standing. The Supreme Court only hear cases where the parties have standing. That means, some damage has to be done to you as a result of the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court does not test laws for constitutionality without a plaintiff who has standing.
Here's the trick though: if you fall victim to the Patriot Act, you may not have access to the judicial system. That means, you will never get a chance to challenge it in court.
This is considerably different from many other republican systems where the highest court can often test laws for constitutionality based on a single complaint of a citizen or a branch/agency of the government.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage
How about mentioning some of the loudest critics- librarians. Most are madder than hell about the Patriot Act, and politicians are finding that going up against librarians(which are seen as by the public as incredibly smart, among other things) isn't very popular. From some of our youngest years, librarians have earned a place of respect as wise, intelligent, helpful, kind people.
Most libraries now display signs at checkout desks and computer workstations warning you they can be forced to turn over information about what you check out etc....and most also now destroy those records on a daily basis, paper or electronic.
And, as Peter Jennings pointed out with a smile on his face, your local library is a great place to sit down and read a copy of the Patriot Act. The librarians will be more than happy to assist.
Folks- libraries across the country are suffering from budget cutbacks just like everyone else. If you think it's awesome that librarians are on your side against the Patriot Act, might I suggest helping them back by volunteering? Think outside the (computer) box too- help reshelf books, read to kids in the children's library, etc...
Please help metamoderate.
Is a 10th Amendment movement. Too bad most states have sold out like whores for "federal" money.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
No. Greenland is not green, civil unrest is not civil, and spraying perfume on dogshit does not make it smell better.
Patriot Act is not and has never been for patriots of this country. It goes against what it means to be American.
Besides, it reads: Anti (Patriot Act), not (Anti-Patriot) Act.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I'll answer this troll.
The answer is: The future. Why open the door for abuse so that a future government can come along, and abuse its citizenry at will?
Only those who want to abuse others like this would even suggest such a thing.
When the government fears the people, its democracy.
When the people fear the government, its tyrrany.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
Two hundred years ago, revolutions were started over these things. Now the sad thing is, even by typing that sentence, I could be looked at by the authorities as subversive.
Good Grief. - Charles Brown
This is different. There is no way Bush is sending troops to destroy the LA City Council, for example. And Patriot has provisions that require state and local cooperation. The feds can't bust down every door or make every arrest or interrogation. And uncooperative state and local cops will be worse than the feds doing it alone. I think this will weaken the Patriot act but I don't see this causing a similar crisis as 1832; I imagine the feds will be content to enforce the act weakly and the states and cities will not stand in the way of federal actions under the act that seem reasonable.
In short, it's a good idea, it's a kind of check and balance that a system like democracy is known for. When legislation is passed at a time of extreme fear and anger, cooler heads prevail later on and do something to cripple the legislation. I don't know how much effect these kinds of actions will have but I do find them encouraging.
Germany is the only other system I'm familiar with in that regard. When a law passes parliament (Bundest and Bundesrat), there's usually two ways to get the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) to rule on the law.
One way is to basically sue parliament for passing an unconstitutional law. Theoretically anybody can do this but it's usually some kind of interest group that will attempt this. Based on the merits of the case, the court will decide to hear it and make a ruling. The consequence, if the verdict is affirmative to the plaintiff's position, is usually that the law is nullified and parliament is instructed to pass a new one. This is what happened several times with the abortion law. It's important here to realize that the constitutional court does not usually say how the law should be although it might hint at some possible implementations. Specifically, the court didn't decide how abortion was to proceed in contrast to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
A second way is through somewhat called a "Normenkontrollklage". The term is typical of German legalese and means literally "norm control suit". The purpose of it is to challenge whether a unit of the government has violated the constitution in its actions. If, for example, one of the house of parliament votes on a bill and that vote is invalid for whatever reason but the president of the parliament at the time of the vote determined it to be valid, a Normenkontrollklage can be filed with the constitutional court to determine if the parliament followed the rules correctly.
In the case in question two years ago, an immigration law was before the Federal Council (similar to the US Senate as it is a body representing the states). The German constitution says that all delegates of a state have to vote the same for the vote to be valid. Well, during row call, the "governor" of one of the states answered in the name of the state with yes, the deputy governor asnwers with no. The Federal Council president asks again to clarify. The governor again says yes and the deputy says something like "you know my vote on this". The Federal Council president then counted the votes of that state as yes which led to quite a stir in the council chambers. The Christian Democrats (in the opposition at that time) filed a suit with the constitutional court challenging the outcome of the vote and won. The immigration law was thus nullified and had to go through the parliamentary process again. It's now sitting in conference committee, if I remember correctly.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
"We" don't make the laws. "They" do with the assumption we actually want them to. Do they ask us? no.
While I think that may be true sometimes, I think many times they make laws because
1. Corporations asked ($$) for them.
2. It makes them sound like they're actually doing something for us so they can get re-elected. ("I passed a new law to protect our children.")
I know lots of good Americans, and lots of Americans that oppose these laws, but there's still plenty of people in the US who need to realize that perhaps it's time to spend a bit more time worrying about having a mass murdering (see, the death penalty is considered barbaric in most of the civilized world) fascist wannabe (who have done more to take away your rights, and those of anyone unfortunate enough to be in areas under US occupation?) in the White house than trying to police the rest of the world (who, incidentally, would be much more likely to be friendly to Americans if US governments didn't keep on installing and overthrowing murderous dictators on a regular basis, depending on who they prefer today)
Civil liberties in the US are under fire now than perhaps any point since the McCarthy era. The Patriot Act serves as a frightening visage of what power-hungry legislators may serve up to placate scared populations. What frightens me more, and what I have not seen mentioned here yet, is the precedent such an act sets. This precedent is carried into this new Domestic Security Enhancement Act which would allow for government-controlled wiretapping, secret arrests, and DNA bank construction on ordinary US citizens without our permission!
The balance between security and freedom is a tenuous one, with increased freedom permitting greater criminal activity and increased security quashing intellectual exploration and constructive criticism. Any criticism of our government is branded un-patriotic in many places (and even unofficially in the press) and may cause arguments or fights. Would the Patriot Act II, or DSEA, allow for political opposition to become targets of investigation by the ruling party? Our intellectual freedom is one of our strengths but what will happen to American society if we start to strangle it?
There are even those who get incensed about questioning the leadership of respective parties, whether G W Bush or H R Clinton is concerned. The actions of our government of late have divided this nation moreso than any I can ever remember. We have factionalized over new attempts of the current leadership in the federal government to expand their powers to those normally resevred for wartime status. However, without a Congressional declaration of war, can these be justified? Would US citizens be forced to turn to military courts under the new DSEA legislation where appeals may not exist and due process is a formality at best?
The first Patriot Act nearly bankrupted several states and forced reductions in education, law enforcement, education, and other areas. Another one may well bankrupt these states and damage the financial strength behind many others. Kentucky released 600 prisoners, while other states have taken more drastic measures. Thus, financially, socially, legally, and intellectually, we can ill afford this new legislation.
If the federal government is going to continue to impose on the rights of the people and states behind them, it sets up some of the same fears and mentality that lead to the Civil War. Any government that instills fear in its own people while being unable to properly manage its resources inevitably collapses, like the USSR. We appear to be on track to a similar fate if we enact these bills so blindly. Even the original Patriot Act divides local governments to the points that the police chiefs are willing to buck the local government to answer to the federal one. There must be better ways to protect the people of the US from the (rare) terrorist event without subjecting us to such loss of liberty and rights.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Just as you would have been then. Don't make a mistake, our founding fathers were England's anarchists.
I'm waiting for the Fuzzy Little Kittens Act. Who would even think about voting against Fuzzy Little Kittens?